A very dramatic example of how FAA regulation stifles innovation in GA - https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-experiment-update/
How the FAA made the V8 conversions of old planes impossible
- Thread starter PeterNSteinmetz
- Start date
rotorwrench
Active member
I think if you read that article with one eye closed you'll see that it is a bit more than FAA "stifling" that is holding them up. Every year dozens of products and articles, some rather innovative, receive their FAA approval using the same system the author(s) have used. So why the difference? Regardless, the private GA market, i.e., owners and pilots, showed basically zero interest in any innovation with the heavily funded AGATE project so things changed after that on many levels. The ironic thing is AGATE led to a number of products that private GA now drools over especially on the digital side. Had they showed this same level of enthusiasm back then there would have been a whole new class of aircraft and products flying around at a designed price point to grow the market.
What do you think was responsible?
Had to look up the AGATE project. I guess it also didn't produce much?
rotorwrench
Active member
1) They never intended to sell this "STC" in the US market which excludes their project's largest and most dominant market. Not an FAA concern.
2) They lacked the in-house aviation talent like an A&P and DER to further the project in a timely fashion. Not an FAA concern.
3) They could not attract qualified investors to move the project beyond its current G1 status, probably due to item #1 & 2. Again, not an FAA concern.
4) And so on... At 4 years of flying they should of had a DER test pilot in the aircraft working out the required operating limits instead of showboating a student getting their PPC.
I guess it depends on how you define "produce much."
For one, the Cirrus SR20 and Columbia 300 were directly produced from the AGATE project. There would have been more models but when the economic surveys showed a lack of interest a number of OEMs stopped or cancelled those models. For example, the Toyota certified aircraft engine mention in the article was part of a big move by Toyota and others to jump into the anticipated revitalized GA market. Toyota even partnered with Rutan and built an aircraft around that engine which flew, but cancelled the project all together.
Just about every digital aircraft interface today has its start from the AGATE project and its associated R&D. For example, I was involved in the ASTS portion of AGATE which looks remarkably similar to the present day ADSB system. If you dig deep enough one usually finds a connection given the millions that were spent on this public/private endeavor. I think if you look hard enough even the drone industry has benefited from AGATE technologies and has taken that advantage to new heights, literally.
There are other examples. But once AGATE had run its predetermined course there was to be a second project. However, the lack of public interest had a number of the principals rethinking their involvement to include the FAA. Then 9/11 hit and realigned many aspects of US aviation.
FYI: I don't know which link you looked up AGATE under but the one below that gives a good abstract.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/AGATE.html
The way I look at their problems is perhaps a bit different. Clearly they were not doing the things which would have made the FAA happy with them, very true.
But my view is - was their inability to get to market due to any actual failure in their approach from the point of view of prospective customers, if there were no FAA regulation of what they were doing?
Clearly any answer to that is speculative. But do you think they were actually doing things that would interfere with their ability to sell in an unregulated situation? Were they blatantly unsafe? Mis-representing performance? Failing in some other way to meet customer needs?
I did not see that but it is just their description and I am far from expert on this sort of thing,
But my view is - was their inability to get to market due to any actual failure in their approach from the point of view of prospective customers, if there were no FAA regulation of what they were doing?
Clearly any answer to that is speculative. But do you think they were actually doing things that would interfere with their ability to sell in an unregulated situation? Were they blatantly unsafe? Mis-representing performance? Failing in some other way to meet customer needs?
I did not see that but it is just their description and I am far from expert on this sort of thing,
Last edited:
rotorwrench
Active member
The point is we don't know that. As far as I'm concerned, based on my experience with the process, I don't think they have personally moved the project forward enough for the FAA to even be upset at them. The STC guidance is pretty straight forward. The fact they blame the FAA for their short-comings with that process is a bit comical. Perhaps they should at least blame the right department for their issues. The AFS (Flight Standards Services) individual they mention in the article has zero to do with aircraft certifications, i.e., STCs. Maybe if they would discuss their needs with their assigned AIR (Aircraft Certification Services) ACO project manager they might actually get some answers and get something done... that is if they have been assigned a project manager yet.
What unregulated situation? What's ironic is even the E/AB people don't think this engine is a viable option in their world which requires no FAA involvement. Lot of unknowns with all the complaining going on. Maybe the principals involved have a low "Emotional Intelligence" threshold?
Possibly yes, as noted in the other article.I am wondering what E/AB people you are referring to. Something other than what was in the article?
In terms of unregulated, I mean either just eliminating the FAA or at least substantially reducing their regulatory authority with respect to GA.
rotorwrench
Active member
Yes. Comments on other forums and E/AB people I spoke to about this engine set up all replied in a similar manner. A one-off prototype with no apparent support infrastructure doesnt make it a good option for any type aircraft at this point.
No need for anything so drastic as they could market their wares right now. Many vendors do it daily right now. The key is to stay away from those trigger words "type certificated aircraft." Part 21 and Part 3 are the main regs to watch out for. Unfortunately, their narrative over the past few years doesnt line up with any plausible outcome other than its not their fault.
Last edited:
rotorwrench
Active member
That doesn't include the V8 though, does it?
Presently I am debating whether to speculate and purchase an SGS 2-32 glider that is on the field.
Presently I am debating whether to speculate and purchase an SGS 2-32 glider that is on the field.
rotorwrench
Active member
Sure does include the V8. Plus spares and other support items. However, it won't include an airworthiness certificate as they will surrender it on delivery. With the right attitude and a few more bucks that could be the saviour of GA! I can see it now: New from Flyers Forum... the Peter Power Performance V8 STC.
Of course this does illustrate how this would certainly be easier without the FAA. Then no certificate to worry about!
Ron Wanttaja
Member
"Oh, yeah. 'Oooh,' 'ahhh,' that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming...."
Everybody loves the idea of government getting out of THEIR business....but there are protections they want, and don't seem to realize they'll go away as well.
I am in favor of the US equivalent of the Canadian "Owner Maintenance" category, basically creating a category of aircraft with zero standards for quality. As long as everyone knows....
Ron Wanttaja
rotorwrench
Active member
Not really. Its already easy with the FAA in its present form. Matter of fact, the US/FAA is the easiest place to get projects like this certified which is why a number of foreign entities bring their ideas here for the process and not the other way around like the V8 guys stated. In reality, the only thing the FAA really cares about is who you going to kill with your flying contraption. So depending who will ride with you, who you plan to fly over, and who you will to sell it to will determine the regulatory path you must follow. Just because these guys failed to understand the system doesn't mean it was hard to do because its not. They just didn't know what they were doing or had the right people with them. And now they want to move onto another engine project.
So right, there is a tradeoff there. It is actually sort of similar to the poster I am now presenting on detecting brief short temporal events in a noisy neurophysiological recording.
You can achieve no false positives by never detecting an event. Of course you will never have a correct detection or hit either. Similarly you can catch every single real event by labeling every time interval an event. Of course you will have a lot of false positives. And you can achieve any fraction of one of those by tolerating the other type of outcome.
The trick is devising a good test that does better than that based on the data.
In aviation you can have perfect safety by never allowing anyone to fly. And you can never prevent or slow down an innovation by allowing everyone to do whatever they want with no consequences at all!
The trick of course is finding a system that does better than this, or a random combination of the two.
You can achieve no false positives by never detecting an event. Of course you will never have a correct detection or hit either. Similarly you can catch every single real event by labeling every time interval an event. Of course you will have a lot of false positives. And you can achieve any fraction of one of those by tolerating the other type of outcome.
The trick is devising a good test that does better than that based on the data.
In aviation you can have perfect safety by never allowing anyone to fly. And you can never prevent or slow down an innovation by allowing everyone to do whatever they want with no consequences at all!
The trick of course is finding a system that does better than this, or a random combination of the two.
True. But would you deny that it would be even easier if there were no regulations at all?
rotorwrench
Active member
Easier how? Easier to do what specifically?
Easier to simply sell the instructions and modifications to any other pilot who wishes to do so and then just fly the modified plane.
My understanding, and I am not anywhere an expert on this, is they cannot simply do that.
My understanding, and I am not anywhere an expert on this, is they cannot simply do that.
rotorwrench
Active member
Sure you can. There is no regulation that would prevent Peter Power Aerospace from selling V8 engine kits, drawings, instructions, and even support services for installation on an experimental aircraft. Now whether there is a market for that kit is a whole other subject. I even asked this question to one of the principals during an online discussion why they didn't pursue that route but got no reply.
Now if you market your kit for install on a 172 or any other TC'd aircraft then you start to run afoul with the rules, mainly Part 3 and Part 21. That's why vendors use the term "experimental" for marketing/selling these non-approved items to stay legal within those rules even though there is no regulatory definition of experimental parts. They simply don't legally exist. Lycoming, TCM, and Superior all sell "experimental" engines under this same method. Same goes for your instructions and other items all marketed/sold for experimental aircraft only. The person buying the PPA kits is the one who becomes responsible for the install and subsequent requirements on their aircraft and not the vendor. And its up to the buyer of your kit to determine the proper method in order to fly that modified aircraft just like they did with their 172 under Experimental Exhibition for the last several years. This is a similar route I use to install non-approved parts on TC'd aircraft. The vendor is not in the regulatory food chain at all only the installer and operator.
There are a number of ways they could have approached this project and got something out of it but chose not to. However, I think the biggest limitation was the fact there was no economic market for this type modification in a TC'd aircraft or even in an E/AB aircraft. If Toyota thought their FAA certified Lexus engine didn't have a viable market back in 2000, I don't see how anyone else could have thought the same now. And its this reason that made me question if there was any serious intent/work being done on an STC for this project in the first place.
